Autosport said the teams voted it down but the FIA are pushing it through on safety grounds. It weighs too much, looks ridiculous and much like the shield, doesn't do the job it's designed to do effectively enough for myself to personally accept the trade-off it brings.

I'm still skeptical it will actually end up on the cars next year, its awfully late in the day for the FIA to be dropping a giant change like this onto the car designers, who probably already have most of next years cars dreamed up already.

I am of mixed feelings about this. IMO this will further uglify the cars, the aesthetics are a complete failure.

But the halo isn't intended to be pretty , it is going to be installed in 2018 for just one reason, increased frontal protection for the drivers, noticeably the head. And for that reason, I can never oppose it's introduction. Many variations and alternate solutions were explored and trialed. And in the end the Halo was found to be the best choice for head protection.

But even now the FIA have stated that the Halo will be around forever. They will continue to explore other solutions. And if a better one is found, then it will be seen on the cars.

Autosport said the teams voted it down but the FIA are pushing it through on safety grounds. It weighs too much, looks ridiculous and much like the shield, doesn't do the job it's designed to do effectively enough for myself to personally accept the trade-off it brings.

I'm still skeptical it will actually end up on the cars next year, its awfully late in the day for the FIA to be dropping a giant change like this onto the car designers, who probably already have most of next years cars dreamed up already.

My understanding is that the FIA pushed for the vote to happen now and not be postponed. The teams did vote it.

I actually don't mind how it looks apart from the fact that it ruins the onboard shots. How much additional protection it offers is something to be considered though, still from a safety point of view something is better than nothing, provided drivers can still exit the vehicle in good time in the event of a flip etc.

Then there's the whole upside down issue. What if Alonso had been trapped in his car in Melbourne last year, with a damaged spine?

I can see some benefits but as I say, not convinced.

Surtees was down to incredibly poor track design, they should have cut that tree down years ago, it means whatever goes off there comes back onto the track.

Oval tracks are always going to have debris coming back onto the track as they are walled in, so I would agree the halo in Indy racing would be much more suited.

With regards to F1, we have the Massa incident which could be made worse by the Halo. If debris hits the underside of the halo it can direct small debris toward the drivers head that may have cleared it.

Bianchi incident thankfully won't happen due to the virtual SC. Well done to the FIA on that one.

Schumachers AD incident will not happen again (in the same way at least) and was the reason we went back to low noses.

There are very few incidences or even near misses in the post Senna modern "safe" era that I feel this device will help with and it brings with it its own problems. We have very good track design that means cars that go off, stay off and also superb wheel tethers. The Halo would act great against a loose wheel but we have tethers and track design. Loose wheels are very rare in F1 now.

I hate how it looks and I would be completely okay with it not being introduced. The cars look better this year, and would be improved further next year with the removal of the t-wings (and potentially the shark fins, too). So to have them ruined aesthetically by something that looks so awful is a damn shame.

(Although I will add that I don't think they'll look so bad if they're actually coloured to fit the cars rather than just being a lump of carbon fibre, and I've previously shown that by changing the colour of one on the Ferrari to better match the Ferrari livery. Still fugly, though)

However, I'm not the one who risks a serious injury - or worse - in the car. I get to sit and watch from the comfort of my own sofa, usually thousands of miles from any danger. If something happens and it could've been prevented by the halo (or any other such device) then it would be even more of a tragedy to know it could've been prevented. Maybe the halo device never saves a single life. Maybe someone still dies because it isn't a complete solution, one with very obvious limitations. But if there's an accident in Melbourne next year, a tyre bounces across the track and the halo saves someone's life by deflecting it away, you just can't argue against that.

I think the halo looked a lot better in the Mercedes concept video than in the version they beta tested, so - in a car it was designed for - it could be integrated in a much more elegant way. They are just bolting on a piece of metalwork (or carbon fibre-work) onto a car it was not designed for when doing the tests. I think it will be like when they first added the side impact protection to the side of the driver's head - early on had very ugly implementations but now you don't even notice...

It's ugly. No doubt about that. But if the FIA have looked into it and this is the safest option then I'm ok with it.

There'll be lots of armchair safety experts around as usual, but F1 has always pushed for safety, have they ever got anything drastically wrong in the area?

It's kind of hypocritical to force manufacturers to produce greener technology that's more appealing to the ever increasing populous of people that are self proclaimed tree huggers that don't even know F1 exists, to then implement this atrocity which is unappealing in all but one regard, and even then I think it's too vague an improvement to force the uglification of the cars. And IMPO having the vertical element dead center like that will bother the drivers. It's like having a handicap permit hanging from your rear view mirror.

I say implement a fully enclosed cockpit with small openings on top for breatheability and allow them to look like fighter jet cockpits that are more in line with F1 than this makeshift eye tumor!

for me there is an acceptable level of risk in f1 now. freak accidents will still happen. why cant they just concentrate on improving drivers helmets to take more impact, and how they are restrained and protected in the car.

I don't like it. I'm all for safety but I think this is a rushed solution. The main problem is surely it's going to effect how quick a driver can get out of the car, and what if they are upside down?The shield looks better and doesn have huge gaps in it.

Well, meh. Have to side with some others hear, it looks awful and the question is what type of danger this eliminates. Large debris flying horizontally at the driver, probably? But in the last 20 years, how many times would this have prevented something?

I do remember Silverstone 2013, the Pirelly fiasco causing delaminations, I think it was Alonso that was terribly lucky to not have a large slab of tyre smacked against his head and that would have qualified for a case where the Halo could have saved it. But that's like the only occurence I remember.

Now, it's not because something hasn't happened yet that you shouldn't prepare for it, but the chances and frequency of it happening should probably be factored in, and I don't think there would then be a positive case for the Halo. I feel it's more a case of "well we have to do SOMETHING, so let's do this".

Well... I hope it looks a bit better when they design it together with the car and make it blend in using some paint.

It's ugly. No doubt about that. But if the FIA have looked into it and this is the safest option then I'm ok with it.

There'll be lots of armchair safety experts around as usual, but F1 has always pushed for safety, have they ever got anything drastically wrong in the area?

It's kind of hypocritical to force manufacturers to produce greener technology that's more appealing to the ever increasing populous of people that are self proclaimed tree huggers that don't even know F1 exists, to then implement this atrocity which is unappealing in all but one regard, and even then I think it's too vague an improvement to force the uglification of the cars. And IMPO having the vertical element dead center like that will bother the drivers. It's like having a handicap permit hanging from your rear view mirror.

I say implement a fully enclosed cockpit with small openings on top for breatheability and allow them to look like fighter jet cockpits that are more in line with F1 than this makeshift eye tumor!

Your rant about tree huggers is irrelevant to the halo.

Regarding the centre vertical piece. Drivers who have used it say you don't really notice it.

I'm willing to have an open mind on this, sure its not really aesthetically pleasing but I'm sure fully designed versions will be made to integrate into the car (as a bare minimum the colour will match the car). It certainly wont be a step backwards safety-wise and adding them now proactively, rather than reacting in hindsight isn't a bad thing. If the shield does turn out to be a better option after more research and testing then I'm sure evolution of the halo will lead there when the time is right.

There was a lot of fuss about shark fins for the first few races too, nobody seems to be that upset about them now. Although that may be because they announced they are getting rid of them I guess...

As ever I'm open to change and make the assumption that this most inelegant of designs will be refined into something more pleasing to the eye as time passes. Like the internal combustion engine itself, they had to start somewhere

Knee jerk again. We need to be seen to do something even if it is not the right thing

I don't think "knee jerk" is the right term. They've been working on this for years

Its probably not, but what I mean is they have committed themselves to doing something, but are unsure if it is the right thing. ( I assume they are unsure or they would not have tested the screen )

If it is the right thing, fine, we can put up with the looks, but what if it causes more problems than it solves. It does not seem to be what would save the driver, but makes it harder to get out. There is also lots of possibility of deflection into the drivers face.

The biggest issue for me is that, as is the case with many optimizations, the Halo trades improved safety in some specific cases with reduced safety in other cases. To me it is not clear at all that the net result is a win.